Do we really need mythologies anymore

[RJDiogenes]

Many episodic stories are original. To be honest, I'm rather skeptical of claims that they are all predictable. What episodic stories aren't, however, is stories about the regular characters. Many viewers appear to invest in only the regular characters. It really seems that part of the resistance to episodic stories is the feeling that investing in the guest characters is like investing feeling in strangers. I'm a little uneasy at the implication that we shouldn't have feelings for strangers, but only for our friends and frenemies.

This appears to be the case, which is odd, since "investing in strangers" is what happens every time someone reads a short story. Of course, most people who watch TV don't read, so the audience expectation may be vastly different.

The conclusive test of experience shows that open-ended serialization is in fact an inferior form. They almost universally end badly, even when they started very well. All the talent that made good starts surely couldn't have dissipated into thin air. It must be the intrinsic limitations of the open-ended serial format.

I don't think either format is intrinsically inferior or superior, since it's the same difference as between short stories and novels. But it may be that limitations imposed by the medium of television make it harder to pull off arc-based storytelling.

 

[Kegg]

Fair point on how in episodic TV the characters who change are the guests, not the regulars, stj.

The conclusive test of experience shows that open-ended serialization is in fact an inferior form. They almost universally end badly, even when they started very well. All the talent that made good starts surely couldn't have dissipated into thin air. It must be the intrinsic limitations of the open-ended serial format.

I don't think either format is intrinsically inferior or superior, since it's the same difference as between short stories and novels.

Well not quite. stj does couch it as 'open-ended serialization.' A novel is a beginning, middle and end, and can be rewritten through multiple drafts so that the entire thing flows as the writer wants it to. He's right that many serialized shows often do not have it set in stone how they'll end, or what their main arc will be a few years down the line, and so on - in this their literary precedent is closer to serials (Dickens and whatnot), or novel series (which have a similar problem in that the author can't rewrite the first book with ideas he's developed for book five).

Granted, there's also TV shows which know exactly where they're going with their serialization, at least in broad strokes about what each year should be about. That... can be helpful, anyway, although they have the same problem of being unable to go through multiple 'drafts.'

It might be interesting to see a TV series which really was a novel - a few seasons of TV shot and edited and reshot with the final episode in the can before the first episode ever aired. I gather that'd be impractically expensive for anything that isn't insanely cheap, though.

And Archer also has serialized elements but is usually about that week's mission.

Mostly network pressure, on that count. I read an interview somewhere where the series creator Adam Reed said he prefers serialized storytelling (and did it rather extensively in his previous animated comedy Frisky Dingo), but FX wanted the series to be more episodic.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The conclusive test of experience shows that open-ended serialization is in fact an inferior form. They almost universally end badly, even when they started very well. All the talent that made good starts surely couldn't have dissipated into thin air. It must be the intrinsic limitations of the open-ended serial format.

I don't think either format is intrinsically inferior or superior, since it's the same difference as between short stories and novels.

Well not quite. stj does couch it as 'open-ended serialization.' A novel is a beginning, middle and end, and can be rewritten through multiple drafts so that the entire thing flows as the writer wants it to. He's right that many serialized shows often do not have it set in stone how they'll end, or what their main arc will be a few years down the line, and so on - in this their literary precedent is closer to serials (Dickens and whatnot), or novel series (which have a similar problem in that the author can't rewrite the first book with ideas he's developed for book five).

Granted, there's also TV shows which know exactly where they're going with their serialization, at least in broad strokes about what each year should be about. That... can be helpful, anyway, although they have the same problem of being unable to go through multiple 'drafts.'

It might be interesting to see a TV series which really was a novel - a few seasons of TV shot and edited and reshot with the final episode in the can before the first episode ever aired. I gather that'd be impractically expensive for anything that isn't insanely cheap, though.

That's pretty much what I meant by "limitations of the medium," but you're right that there are parallels in literature-- the old Penny Dreadfuls, magazine serials, novel series and comic books.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Mostly network pressure, on that count. I read an interview somewhere where the series creator Adam Reed said he prefers serialized storytelling (and did it rather extensively in his previous animated comedy Frisky Dingo), but FX wanted the series to be more episodic.

My sense of it is this: episodic shows get made for business reasons (syndication, hanging into the audience even if they miss an episode, predictability of content - the story won't go galumphing off into some unpopular direction that drives away viewers) and serialized shows get made for creative reasons (more creative freedom).

So it all depends on whether business or creative rules the roost. At CBS, business does. At HBO, creative does. Everyone else slots in somewhere between.

However, even dowdy CBS is launching what looks like a highly serialized show this season: Vegas (used to be called Ralph Lamb), basically their take on Justified. Here's the trailer.

 

[stj]

Serialization is a business decision aimed at retaining an audience by providing cliffhangers. Networks that need a loyal audience more than a large audience (which includes the likes of HBO) resort to serialization. If open-ended serialization produced decent stories that people would care to watch again, we'd never see another episodic TV show again: Every set would be amortized.

An artistic decision, as opposed to a business decision, would be to terminate a serial when it started to get ridiculous.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I've seen many interviews with showrunners and writers where they say some variation of "I love writing serialized shows for the creative freedom." I've yet to read anyone say that about the episodic structure.

The business-related value for episodic shows is obvious. For serialized ones, well, cable audiences do expect that, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did audiences learn to like serialization because showrunners with clout insisted on that format, on HBO and then elsewhere on cable?

 

[startrekwatcher]

I used to enjoy standalones but anymore these days they are predictable. I much prefer a storyline that can be developed and have the freedom to take more than one or two episodes to really do the idea justice. I also think it inspires writers--rather than just taking old chestnut #110815 and plugging in their characters they are forced to craft an arc which help create a unique identity for the show.

I agree in recent years serialization hasn't been very good and has been more or less a hodgepodge of nifty WTF moments, weak payoffs and dozens of underdeveloped storylines rather than a few well developed ones. But when serialization is firing on all cylinders it really is a more satisfying experience and allows for unpredictability, risk, more layers, and a more gratifying payoff after months of investment.

 

[Warped9]

I've enjoyed both formats. And what that tells me is that what matters is the quality of the work, not the format. One form isn't superior or inferior. They're just different.

It isn't the canvas, but the artist's talent and what he/she puts on the canvas.

 

[ebusinesstutor]

In the end, I think it comes down to how well the arc is done.

With Lost and BSGnu, I felt the stories eventually got off track and weren't fully thought out from the beginning.

Babylon 5, on the other hand, was brilliantly done because it had one main writer working out the arc. I have only seen the first 3 seasons of Dexter, but they seem well done as well. Each season builds on previous years, but provide a great story line that concludes in that season.

So I think it is more about the strength of the arc and how well it is executed rather than that arcs make bad shows.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've seen many interviews with showrunners and writers where they say some variation of "I love writing serialized shows for the creative freedom." I've yet to read anyone say that about the episodic structure.

So every writer in history who ever wrote a short story was really wishing that they were writing a novel?

 

[stj]

Most writers wish they were writing a novel, because novels pay better. I remember seeing a number of interviews where a writer says they like the short story but it doesn't pay enough. It takes a great deal of effort to write a good short story.

In one of the commentary tracks for the Miracles DVD set, one of the producers admits that they preferred the standalone stories in that series. But of course it's true that most showrunners will say they prefer serialization. In the end, the viewer will have to decide on the basis of what she or he sees, and what I see is that creative freedom in open-ended serialization leads to really crappy stories. There are very, very few long term serials that don't turn into giant trainwrecks.

 

[Takeru]

I've seen many interviews with showrunners and writers where they say some variation of "I love writing serialized shows for the creative freedom." I've yet to read anyone say that about the episodic structure.

Weird, I always assumed episodic shows offer more creative freedom. On TNG for example the writers could come up with pretty much any story they wanted, Enterprise shows up at new planet, has adventure and leaves. The only thing limiting the writer's freedom are the regular characters, on heavily serialized shows he has to take most of the current storyline into account, Jack Bauer can't have a wacky case involving clowns and their stolen tiny car in episode 16 and then return to the terrorist plot of the day.

 

[MacLeod]

Serialised story telling is in part basically remembering what you've done before. Or having continuity with what ws seen/mentioned before.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I've seen many interviews with showrunners and writers where they say some variation of "I love writing serialized shows for the creative freedom." I've yet to read anyone say that about the episodic structure.

Weird, I always assumed episodic shows offer more creative freedom. On TNG for example the writers could come up with pretty much any story they wanted, Enterprise shows up at new planet, has adventure and leaves. The only thing limiting the writer's freedom are the regular characters, on heavily serialized shows he has to take most of the current storyline into account, Jack Bauer can't have a wacky case involving clowns and their stolen tiny car in episode 16 and then return to the terrorist plot of the day.

You're comparing sci fi to non sci fi - of course sci fi has more creative freedom because they can bend the laws of physics and do insane, impossible things. All Jack Bauer can do is drive 600 mph on LA freeways. And of course he did work with Spock once...

 

[RJDiogenes]

Most writers wish they were writing a novel, because novels pay better. I remember seeing a number of interviews where a writer says they like the short story but it doesn't pay enough. It takes a great deal of effort to write a good short story.

Sure, everybody wants to make more money, but we're talking about creativity.

 

[xortex]

Artistic integrity is more important. Creativity should be a given but you work with what you got and respect it. You don't bend it into a pretzel or do harm to it or ruin it or mistreat it or push it beyond it's limits or make it your own something else by distorting it. There's an infinite amount of things to do in a sandbox for someone who is truly creative, else get your own sandbox. You work within the rules of the game or you work elsewhere. It's like a marriage, not that I would know, but it should be.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Artistic integrity is more important.

You do realize, we're talking about network TV.

 

[xortex]

Which is why I don't watch it nor buy Trek novels anymore. From the sublime to the ridiculous I hear that they made bullshit into an art too.

 

[Set Harth]

You can make pottery from it.

 

[xortex]

Do you like watching pots?